• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 - Buketik39.Ru, instance, cited their local professor 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.